NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF SUNFLOWER
MEAL FOR RUMINANTS
by
ROBERT KINGSLEY RATCLIFF, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
ANIMAL NUTRITION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Approved
<r
December, 1977
/+ n :\AwJ L^ U
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express sincere gratitude to Dr. Robert C.
Albin for his counseling and guidance in the preparation
of this thesis, as well as the other members of my graduate
committee. Dr. Leland F. Tribble and Dr. Fred Buddingh for
their deliberations. I also wish to express my thanks
for the help obtained from Dr. C. R. Richardson, Plains
Co-op Oil Mill, Lubbock Cotton Oil Company, Levelland
Vegetable Oil Mill, and the National Cottonseed Product
Association for their help in compiling this data. Lastly,
I wish to express my gratitude to my wife, Su, for her
support and consolation in the many months of work which
went into this research.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 4
Composition of Sunflower Meal 4
Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal for Monogastric Animals 10
Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal for Ruminants 14
Statistical Analysis of Variation for Digestion and Metabolism Trials . . . . 16
III. NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF SUNFLOWER MEAL FOR
RUMINANTS 2 3
Summary 23
Introduction 24
Experimental Procedure 26
Results and Discussion 29
LIST OF REFERENCES 39
111
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Fatty Acid Composition of Sunflower Varieties Grown in the South 5
2 Composition of Sunflower Meal 7
3 Amino Acid Content of Sunflower Meal on the Basis of Percent of Protein 9
4 Mineral Value of Selected Meals 11
5 Analysis of Variance: One-Way Classification 18
6 Analysis of Variance: Two-Way Classification 20
7 Analysis of Variance: 4 x 4 Latin Square Design 22
8 Ration Composition for Sunflower Meal Experiment 27
9 Chemical Composition of Rations Utilized in the Sunflower Meal Study 28
10 Apparent Digestion Coefficients and Nitrogen Balance Values for Rations Containing Sunflower Meal 30
11 Composition of Sunflower Meal 33
12 Percent Digestibility by Difference for Sunflower Meal 34
13 Mean Squares and "F" Values for Latin Square Versus Randomized Complete-Block Design . . 37
IV
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The importance of the sunflower, Helianthus annuus, in
the United States is increasing in terms of oil production
and high quality feed by-products. The estimated acreage
to be harvested in the United States in the 1977 growing
season is 2,025,000 acres (U.S.D.A.-Economic Research
Service, personal communication, 1977). The annual world
wide production of sunflower seed has been about 11 million
metric tons (USDA, FAS, World Agricultural Production and
Trade, August, 1974). One reason for this production is
the high quality industrial vegetable oil extracted from
the seed (Robertson, 1975). Animal feeders are becoming
interested in the by-product meal. This meal provides an
efficient source of protein and energy for the feeding of
ruminant animals (Pearson et al., 1954; Kercher et al.,
1974).
Historically, sunflowers are native American wild
flowers, belonging to the family Compositae. Nutritionally,
the first evidence of sunflower usage for food in the
United States was by Indians at Roanoke Island, North
Carolina in 1586. It was also used later, 1615, by New
England colonists for hair oil (Robertson, 1975) . Since
that time sunflowers have established their own economic
base in the world agricultural market. In the 1830's,
Russia developed a feasible process for oil extraction
from sunflower seed and began to utilize it as a field
crop. This carried over into the United States, and by
194 3, there was avid commercial sunflower production in
Missouri, Kansas, and California. There was a demise in
production of sunflower crops when soybean meal and oil
became established and sunflower seed returned to a primary
use in bird seed and confectionary production markets
(Trotter et al., 1970). In 1967, high oil content sun
flowers were grown commercially for the first time in the
United States, restimulating the concern for sunflower
oil production. As a result of this oil production, the
industry was also interested in uses of the by-product
meal. Little sunflower meal is being used in human nutri
tion at this time due to a lack of basic research on the
product (V. L. Huffman et al., 1975). Researchers have
found sunflower meal to be an acceptable feed for several
types of domestic animals.
Realizing the potential of sunflower seed meal, the
National Cottonseed Products Association of Memphis,
Tennessee, has investigated and reviewed the nutritional
and feeding value of sunflower meal (Smith, 1968; Kinard,
1975). As a result of their interest, Texas Tech University
was endowed to investigate the nutritional value of sun
flower meal for ruminants.
Objectives of the research reported in this thesis
were:
1. determination of comparative digesti
bility and nitrogen balance values for rations
containing either cottonseed meal and/or sun
flower meal;
2. determination of digestion coefficients
for sunflower meal calculated by difference;
3. determination of the roughage replace
ment value of sunflower meal as compared to
cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls in a
ruminant finishing ration; and
4. to compare the relative efficiency of
designs of randomized complete-block, two-way
analysis of variance versus 4 x 4 Latin square
analysis of variance for determining digesti
bility and nitrogen balance values for feeder
steers.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research concerning the utilization of sunflower meal
for ruminant diets is limited. The following literature
review will present available information concerning the
composition and use of sunflower meal as a dietary resource
for monogastric and ruminant animals.
Composition of Sunflower Meal
Oil Content and Quality
Typical high oil content sunflower seeds contain
about 40 to 50% oil. The oil, once dewaxed, is a light
yellow color. The greatest use for this oil is as an
edible product for human consumption due primarily to
the high ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to saturated
fatty acids (Trotter et al., 1970), and its low linolenic
acid content (Anderson, 1970). Fatty acid composition
data for sunflower oil is presented in Table 1. The
primary unsaturated fatty acids are linoleic and oleic
acid. The saturated fatty acids consist of low levels
of palmitic and stearic acids and small amounts of palmi-
toleic, linolenic, arachidic, beheuic, and lignoceric
acids (Robertson, 1975). The low level of saturated fatty
TABLE 1. FATTY ACID COMPOSITION OF
SUNFLOWER VARIETIES GROWN IN
a/ THE SOUTH-'
Growing area
Clemson, S. C.
Crossville, Ala.
Experiment, Ga.
Tifton, Ga.
Baton Rouge, La.
College Sta. Tx.
No. b/ Composition of oil, (%, area avg)
Saturates Oleic Linoleic
10
11
22
19
8
22
1 1 . 0
1 1 . 3
1 1 . 6
1 1 . 2
1 0 . 1
9 . 7
4 3 . 6
4 4 . 8
4 4 . 8
5 3 . 0
5 4 . 2
5 7 . 6
4 5 . 6
4 3 . 5
4 3 . 3
3 5 . 3
3 4 . 4
3 2 . 2
Average 10.8 49,7 39.7
a/ -^C. H. Neufeld H., Proc. Fourth Int. Sunflower Conf
p. 38; 1970.
—^Oil seed varieties.
acids makes sunflower oil acceptable to those supporting
the possibility of a link between dietary fat intake and
heart disease (Vergoessen, 1970).
Uses for sunflower oil are many and varied and are
broken down into edible and inedible products. Among the
edible products are salad and cooking oil, margarine and
shortening (baking and frying fats) (Trotter et al.,
1970) . On the other hand, inedible products include
animal feeds and paint bases (Anderson, 1970).
Processing
Processing of high oil type sunflower seed is pre
dominantly carried out by three methods. These are 1)
direct solvent extraction, 2) prepress solvent extraction,
and 3) expeller or screw extraction. As a result of
processing, sunflower meal composition may vary greatly.
This is due to the amount of heat used in processing and
extracting the meal (Clandinin et al., 1950). Table 2
contains data for the composition of sunflower meal pro
cessed by two different techniques.
Protein
Protein quality and quantity are two of the primary
considerations in animal nutrition for the use of a
particular feedstuff. The crude protein value of extracted
sunflower meal ranges from 32% to 37%. The protein appears
TABLE 2. COMPOSITION OF
SUNFLOWER MEAL
(%, DRY BASIS)
Item Types of Processing
Pre-press solvent extracted
Expeller extracted
Dry matter
Crude protein
Ash
Ether extract
Crude fiber
92.7
34.6
6.6
1.1
25.8
93.5
32.1
N/A
N/A
26.8
to be about 82% digestible, which compares with the digesti
bility of soybean meal at 82% (Stake et al., 1972). When
amino acids are considered, sunflower meal is considered
to be rich in tryptophan, arginine, and especially methio
nine, but low in lysine (Delic et al., 1963). In 1966,
Smith reported that lysine was the first limiting amino
acid in sunflower meal. In addition, Howe et al. (1965)
reported that supplementation with L-lysine and DL-threonine
gave a higher PER response in rats than could be attributed
to lysine supplementation alone. Table 3 shows the amino
acid composition of sunflower meal (Cater et al., 1970).
Energy
The gross energy value of sunflower meal compares
favorably with soybean meal and cottonseed meal; 4,117
kcal/kg, 4,719 kcal/kg and 4,540 kcal/kg, respectively.
These values for gross energy will vary due to the amount
of residual oil and hulls after processing (Kinard, 1975).
Vitamins and Minerals
Little work has been done with the analysis of
vitamins in sunflower meal. Research suggests that the
B-vitamin content may be adequate (Day et al., 1945; Rad
et al,, 1974). Day and Levin (1945) reported increased
growth in chicks with supplementary riboflavin and thia-
TABLE 3, AMINO ACID CONTENT OF SUNFLOWER
MEAL ON THE BASIS OF PERCENT OF PROTEIN-^
Amino acid Percent
Lysine 3.15
Histidine 2.20
Arginine 9.16
Methionine 2,05
Threonine 3.59
Valine 5.15
Isoleucine 4.45
Leucine 6,45
Tyrosine 2,84
Phenylalanine 4.67
— Hexane extracted meal
10
mine, when fed together. However, no acceleration of
growth rate was noted when thiamine and riboflavin were
fed individually, Brummett et al. (1972) reported that
sunflower meal was a rich source of vitamin A.
The mineral content of sunflower meal has been rel
atively well documented by several sources. The mineral
content of sunflower meal, soybean meal and cottonseed
meal may be found in Table 4.
Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal for Monogastric Animals
Poultry
The greatest bank of research on the nutritional
value of sunflower meal has probably been with poultry.
In 1944, Pettit et al. reported that sunflower meal
could be used to satisfactorily replace up to 5% meat
meal in chick starter rations. Pettit also found that
egg production and hatchability results indicated that
sunflower meal could adequately replace part or all of the
soybean oil meal, or half the meat meal, or half the fish
meal in laying and breeding ration. He indicated that
sunflower meal could replace all of the soybean meal plus
half of the meat meal simultaneously without serious de
creases in egg production or hatchability.
Later studies by Grau et al. (1945) reported that
sunflower meal, when allowed to provide 20% of the protein
11
TABLE 4. MINERAL VALUE OF SELECTED
MEALS (%, DRY BASIS)
Item
Calcium
Phosphorus
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Copper
Manganese
Iron
Cottonseed meal \/
.17
1.30
.60
1.51
.04
.00002
.00002
.032
Soybean meal 1 /
.36
.75
,30
2.21
.38
.00004
.00003
.013
Sunflower meal
.48
.84
.44
3.49
.015
.003
.002
,01
—'Values for soybean and cottonseed meal were taken from the United States - Canadian Tables of Feed Composition (Second Revision) Publication 1684, Natl, Acad. Sci. Washington, D.C. 1969.
12
requirement in a chick diet, was a complete source of the
essential amino acids required by the chick for growth.
However, in response to Grau's finding, McGinnis et al.
(1947) observed the nutritional deficiencies of sunflower
meal for chicks. McGinnis indicated that: 1) both soy
bean oil meal and sunflower meal are deficient in an un
identified growth factor for chicks; 2) the principal
deficiency of a practical type of chick diet containing
sunflower meal as the only source of supplementary protein
appears to be lysine; and 3) that a practical type of
chick diet containing sunflower meal does not require
additional supplementation with methionine.
In 1956, Klain et al. reported that when expeller
processed sunflower meal was used to replace soybean meal
in a chick diet, a significant decrease in growth was seen.
Additional supplementation of sunflower meal rations with
lysine gave increased growth, but did not equal growth
results from soybean meal. However, Temperton et al. (1965)
indicated that sunflower meal satisfactorily replaced
soybean meal in growing chick rations.
Later work by Rose et al. (1971) observed the re
placement value of sunflower seed meal to be 50% of that
of soybean meal for laying hens without adversely affecting
hen performance. When soybean meal was totally replaced
13
by sunflower meal, a significant decrease in egg production
and feed efficiency was observed. Rose noted characteristic
egg shell stains which were apparently due to the chloro-
genic acid content of sunflower meal. Studies by Rad et al.
(1974) confirmed Rose's finding of a maximum 50% replace
ment value of sunflower meal for soybean meal, without
adverse effects on gain and feed conversion.
The only available data on turkeys reported that there
was a severe deficiency of lysine when sunflower meal was
used as the dietary protein supplement (Slinger et al.,
1949) .
Swine
The nutritional value of sunflower meal for swine
resembles that of poultry. Pearson et al. (1954) reported
that soybean meal and peanut meal performed better than
sunflower meal as a protein source in a corn alfalfa diet.
Pigs given diets containing sunflower meal developed
dermatitis, presumably due to the low lysine level of sun
flower meal. Research reported by Delic et al. (1964)
noted that performance in growing swine was greater with
soybean meal than with sunflower or fish meal.
Work by Seerley et al. (1974) observed the effects
of processing temperature in conjunction with the replace
ment of soybean meal with sunflower meal, Seerley found
14
that hexane extracted sunflower meal heated to 127C before
extraction performed better than similar diets containing
sunflower meal heated to pre-extraction temperatures of
75 to lOOC, Seerley also indicated that 25% expeller ex
tracted sunflower meal, heated to 127C before extraction,
was equivalent to soybean meal for gains, but showed a
decrease for feed efficiency.
Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal for Ruminants
Sunflower meal has been well received as an economical
source of protein, fiber, and energy within the realm of
ruminant nutrition. Some limited research has been pub
lished on different species of ruminants and their ability
to utilize sunflower meal.
Sheep
Research on the feeding of sunflower meal to sheep
is limited. Amos et al. (1974) reported nitrogen retention
in a group of wethers to be higher for sunflower meal than
for soybean meal: 32% and 27.2%, respectively. In a later
study, Kercher et al. (1974) observed that the digestibility
of soybean meal and corn surpassed that of sunflower meal:
64.6, 65.9, and 56.1%, respectively. Kercher reported
higher nitrogen retention values for soybean meal than
sunflower meal.
15
Dairy Cattle
Use of sunflower meal as a protein supplement in
lactating dairy cattle rations seems to be acceptable.
Recent studies by Schingoethe et al. (1976), indicated
that protein from sunflower meal was equivalent to that
from soybean meal for lactating cows. In another study,
Yugoslavian experiments showed a slight increase in milk
production for cows fed sunflower meal as opposed to
isonitrogenous portions of alfalfa hay (Ockolic et al.,
1972). Early results from Radeva (1959) report no dif
ferences in milk yield, composition, or butterfat contents
from cows fed three or five kilograms of sunflower seed
cake when replacing linseed cake.
Beef Cattle
Use of sunflower meal in growing and finishing rations
is becoming well established in the cattle feedlot com
munity. Some of the initial research with beef cattle
was done by Pearson et al. (1954). They observed that
sunflower meal, though slightly unpalatable, was equal to
cottonseed meal as a protein supplement for growing beef
cattle. In a later study, Kercher et al. (1974) indicated
no significant differences between sunflower meal and soy
bean meal in performance trials using average daily gain
and feed efficiency as indicators.
16
Statistical Analysis of Variation for Digestion and Metabolism Trials
One of the researcher's greatest tools for evaluating
observations obtained from experiments, is statistical
analysis. The first formalization of this science was
done by Karl Pearson (1857-1936), a mathematical physicist,
when he founded the journal Biometrika. Pearson spent some
50 years devoted to advancing the science of statistics.
However, for the scientist, statistics really began about
1925 with the advent of Sir Ronald A. Fisher's book.
Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Fisher and his
students gave a great deal of effort to developing the
practical application of statistics for the fields of
agriculture, biology, and genetics. This particular use
of statistical analysis for biological data is now commonly
known as biometry.
Statistics deals with three primary areas of research;
collection, analysis and interpretation of data. The
first area, collection of data, is a widespread, almost
infinite area to cover. For this reason, three methods
of analysis and interpretation of data were considered:
1) one-way analysis of variance, 2) two-way analysis of
variance and 3) Latin square analysis of variance.
17
One-way Analysis of Variance
This method of analysis was developed by Sir Ronald
Fisher and is essentially a way of partitioning observed
effects into components associated with certain known
sources of variation. This is a common tool in analyzing
completely random data when all experimental units are
alike or homogeneous. The variation among like individuals,
or experimental units, is small and variation may be at
tributed solely to effects due to treatments being tested
or to some sort of experimental error. The total variation
is divided into: 1) the effects among treatments; and 2)
the effects within treatments (error). The symbolic re
presentation of the partitioning of these effects is re
presented in Table 5 (Steel et al., 1960).
Two-Way Analysis of Variance
One-way classification of data applies the concept
to a completely random design since all experimental units
were essentially homogeneous, and variation could be
attributed to one main effect, treatment. However, two-
way classification of data works with a randomized complete-
block design. This design is used when experimental units
can be grouped into subgroups being equal to or a multiple
of, the number of treatments to be tested. Such subgroups
are known as replicates or blocks. This produces a two-
18
TABLE 5. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
ONE-WAY CLASSIFICATION
Source of variation
Degrees of freedom
Definition formula for sums of squares
Total rt - 1 I (Xij - x..)^ ID
Treatments t - 1 r I (Xi. - X..)
Error t(r - 1) I (Xij - x.)^ ij
19
way classification, since any observation is classified by
the treatment which it received and the replication to
which it belonged (Snedecor et al., 1967).
In two-way classification of data, variation is
analyzed as a function of three effects; variation among
treatments, variation among blocks, and variation within
blocks by treatments. Thusly, two-way analysis serves
to arithmetically remove the effect of blocks from
appearing in the variation within treatments by blocks
(error). This removes the likelihood that one block of
experimental units will react differently than any other
block to known external factors during the test period.
The symbolic representation of the partitioning of these
effects is represented in Table 6.
Latin Square Analysis of Variance
Latin square analysis is a method for controlling
additional sources of variation that are predictive, to
some degree, and that would otherwise be viewed as experi
mental error. Thusly, this technique yields an increase
in the precision of an experiment. Snedecor et al. (1967)
points out that in animal nutrition trials, the effects
of both litter and condition of the animal may be removed
from the estimates of treatment means by the use of a
Latin square design. The total variation observed can be
20
TABLE 6, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TWO-WAY CLASSIFICATION
Source of variation
Degrees of freedom
Definition formula for sums of squares
Total rt - 1 I (Xij - X..) ID
Blocks r - 1 _ 2
t I (x.j - X..)
Treatments t - 1 r I (xi. - X..)
Error (r-1)(t-1) I (Xij - x.j - xi. + X..) ID
21
partitioned into four sources; 1) variation among treat
ments, 2) variation among subjects (columns), 3) variation
among order of subjects (rows), and 4) experimental error.
This method of analysis increases the confidence of the
researcher in determining whether the variation is due
to treatments or error. The symbolic representation of
the partitioning of these effects is represented in Table 7
22
TABLE 7. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
4 x 4 LATIN SQUARE DESIGN
Source of variation
Total
Degrees of freedom
Definition formula for sums of squares
r - 1 I (Xij - x..)^ ID
Rows r - 1 r I (Xi. - x. .) 1
Columns r - 1 r I {x.j - X. ,)
D
Treatments r - 1 r I (xt - X..) t
Error (r-1)(r-2) I (Xij - xi. - x.j - xt + 2x..)
CHAPTER III
NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF SUNFLOWER
MEAL FOR RUMINANTS
Summary
Replicated 4 x 4 Latin square digestion and metabolism
trials were used to compare sunflower meal (SFM) with
cottonseed meal (CSM) and cottonseed hulls (CSH) in iso-
fibrous, isonitrogenous diets for feeder steers. Sunflower
meal was substituted for cottonseed meal and cottonseed
hulls into a feedlot finishing diet at levels of 0, 5.5,
11 and 22%; constituting rations A, B, C and D, respec
tively. Chemical composition, digestibility and nitrogen
balance values were determined. In addition, direct di
gestibility of sunflower meal by difference, and comparisons
of randomized complete-block versus Latin square design
were conducted.
Eight Holstein feeder steers, weighing 296 kg were
adjusted to each ration for 18 days prior to 5 day col
lections. Intake was limited to 6.8 kg/head/day. Water
was provided free choice.
No differences (P < .05) were found for the digestion
coefficients and N balance values among rations A, B and C
for any variable examined. Ration D was different (P < .05)
from rations A, B, and C, respectively, in organic matter,
23
24
(72.9 vs 64.2, 66.2, 66.1); and crude protein, (61.2 V£
44.2, 49.4, 46.4). However, the increased digestible
protein was not utilized since no differences (P < .05)
were found among treatments for nitrogen balance values.
These results indicate that no differences exist
between sunflower meal and cottonseed meal when fed in
rations for feeder steex's containing recommended crude
protein levels.
Introduction
Sunflower varieties with high oil content were first
grown commercially in the United States in 1967. The by
product meal from this crop has great potential for animal
feeds, particularly as a source of protein and energy for
ruminant species. However, relatively little research
has been conducted on the nutritional value of the meal.
In a time when feed supplies are costly, and the profit
margin is slight, development of low cost, high quality
feed courses is imperative.
Pearson et al, (1954) indicated that sunflower meal,
though slightly unpalatable, was equal to cottonseed meal
as a protein supplement for growing beef cattle.
Amos et al. (1974) reported that percent nitrogen
retention in a group of wethers was higher for those animals
fed diets containing sunflower meal as opposed to those
containing soybean meal; 32.0 and 27.2 percent, respectively
25
In 1976, Schingoethe et al. published that protein
from sunflower meal was equivalent to that from soybean
meal for lactating cows.
Ockolic et al. (1972) observed that diets containing
sunflower meal showed a slight increase in milk production
over those diets containing isonitrogenous portions of
alfalfa hay.
Kercher et al. (1974) found no significant differences
between sunflower meal and soybean meal in steer perform
ance trials for average daily gain and feed efficiency.
It is apparent from these data that sunflower meal
can be used as a protein and energy source for ruminant
animals.
The objectives of this study were:
1. determination of comparative digesti
bility and nitrogen balance values for rations
containing either cottonseed meal and/or sun
flower meal;
2. determination of digestion coefficients
for sunflower meal calculated by difference;
3. determination of the roughage replace
ment value of sunflower meal as compared to
cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls in a
ruminant finishing ration; and
26
4. to compare the relative efficiency of
designs of randomized complete-block, two-way
analysis of variance versus 4 x 4 Latin square
analysis of variance for determining digesti
bility and nitrogen balance values for feeder
steers.
Experimental Procedure
Eight Holstein feeder steers weighing 296 kg were
used in four replicated Latin square digestion and meta
bolism trials. Steers were adjusted to each ration under
feedlot conditions for 18 days prior to a four day stall
adjustment period and a five day total collection period.
All steers were housed in an enclosed building during
the stall adjustment and collection periods. A typical
cattle feedlot finishing ration was used for the basal
formulation. All diets were formulated to meet or exceed
National Research Council (NRC) recommendations. Ingredient
and chemical composition of the experimental rations are
listed in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. Rations A, B, and
C were formulated to contain similar crude protein and
crude fiber levels, based upon chemical analyses conducted
on the feed ingredients prior to initiating the feeding
study. Ration D was formulated to contain twice the sun
flower meal of ration C in order to determine the effects
27
E H 2
W CM X H
H :5 o
W
p:: o fa
o H EH H W O CM
o u
o M
00
W
< E H
fd
H fd
CAO
S •H •P
u
PQ
<
IT)
o
in
00
in
CO
• 00
S
t
o o
o o
o o
O in
o o CM
(U
-p 8
o o
o o
o o 00
o
fd r-i
I ^ 1
01
s •4->
8
o o in
CM O O
O O
O
in
in
o o
-P
rH O
O o
• o o
in o o
in rg
in
U
(d 2
-P
o o
• o o
o o
o o
• o o
o o o
• o o
(0
ro
s
o ro
•H B rd -P •H >
o
£ fd u G^
in
ro
0 c:
•H fd -p c • o w o d
c: w o
•H 4-» O fd o
13 O CM
< fd
28
Q H N H K I H EH D
W Z o M EH
s fa o z o H EH M W O CM S o u K:I < u H
s: fa ffi u
>H Q D EH
K^ <
g
cc; w ^ o I-? fa s :D
w fa ffi EH
:3 M
fa
EH
:l u
•H fd
tn
O
•J s
Q
O
CQ
cn ^
V
o a\
CN *
ro rH
rH "^
• •
ro
CN o
• • « *
o in
•
o ' r
• •^
» o r-{
<
CM
O
r^
o rH
CN
o
• ^
ro o
c\
ro *
o o
CJ^
» ro
in ro
CO
KD a\
• (T» 00
CO •
o rH
r-i i H
» ro
ro CN
• ^
in "<
•
in ro
• ro
w 00
-Cn
4J
Q
OP
s CM
0
fd CJ
^
& u ^ § CO U)
Gro
<A0
V
•rH U
Cal
o\o cW>
29
of high levels of sunflower meal feeding. Therefore,
crude protein and crude fiber values for ration D were
not similar to the other rations.
Consumption of all rations was limited to 6.8 kg per
head daily, fed in two equal feedings. Water was provided
free choice. Rations were sampled regularly; total wet
feces were weighed, sampled (10% aliquot) and the samples
composited daily. Total daily urine was diluted to a con
stant volume from which a 200 ml aliquot was composited
for later analysis. Prior to analysis, fecal samples were
dried at 50C, and urine samples were frozen. Proximate
analysis of feed and feces, and urinary nitrogen analysis
were conducted by Association of Agricultural Chemists
(AOAC) (1970) methods. Gross energy determinations were
made with an oxygen bomb, adiabatic calorimeter. True
digestibility of crude protein was calculated using the
value of .45 g metabolic fecal nitrogen per 100 grams dry
matter intake (Blaxter, 1964). Statistical analyses were
by analysis of variance and mean comparisons according to
Steel et al. (1960).
Results and Discussion
Comparative Digestibility and Nitrogen Balance Values
Results of the four, replicated Latin square digestion
and metabolism trials are shown in Table 10, No significant
30
fa u 2: < ^^ < CQ
IS fa O o cc; EH H ^
Q 2 <C CO ^ ^ fa H U H fa fa fa o u ^ o M EH CO fa O H D
^
RE
N
<: CM CM <
• o i H
fa K^ CQ <; H
-^
X
'^ '—
^ < fa
Cc fa ^ o 1 ^ fa s; D CO
O S M ^ H < EH
2; O U
CO ^ O M EH <C
cc; o fa
UE
S
t^
< >
- CO H CO > ^A < S <
M S < D O CO
^ H H < K l
CO
g
U s u fa
I -P CO
o
CQ
<
^ CN >£> vo i n
CN CM
fd fd fd CO ro IJ3 ro r
• • • • • O rH ro O ro r r vD CO r
r- o « •
" o CN CN
r o o CT> CN cr\
r o i n CTv r o CO ( ^ VD ^ r-- U3
r o * * • •
o (y> CN f-\
Cvl CO r H Cy> U3
CM fv) VD cr> r--*X) VD ^ VX) VD
o o CM CN
oV>
CJ o\o
cr» ro rH t-{
KO CO
•^ in
in rH ro ro CO r o U3 r-- rH rH vo v£> r r- r
^ \D
o o CN CN
i n i n
CM KO i n rvj
CM rH i n ro
"^ in • •
r o i n i n CN
0 u c fd u
- H MH - H
• H CO
t-\ i n fd o D •
•H -P V (0
•H CM -P ^ fd 4J • CO 0
0 -H +J .H O C 0 0 g
TJ fd w
CO -p 0
•H -P 5H u n to o 0 10 CM C •m fd CO 0
-P U i •H C ^ O
CO (d
fd 0
^
31
differences were detected (P < .05) among rations A, B,
and C for any variable evaluated. This would support the
hypothesis that sunflower meal is similar to solvent ex
tracted cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, when fed on
an equal crude protein and crude fiber basis, in a sorghum
based finishing ration for beef cattle. This would agree
with those results observed by Pearson et al., (1954).
However, a significant difference (P < .05) was detected
between ration D and rations A, B, and C. Ration D had
significantly higher digestion coefficients for dry matter,
organic matter, crude protein, and true digestibility of
protein. No significant differences were found (P < .05)
for gross energy digestibility among all four rations.
The increased digestibility of ration D is difficult
to explain. Church (1976) points out that there is not a
good correlation between degradation of protein in the
rumen and nitrogen utilization by the ruminant animal. A
recent paper by Neville et al. (1977) reported similar
findings of increased nutrient digestibility in conjunction
with high protein levels. However, researchers offered
no explanation for this observation.
There were no significant differences (P < .05) among
rations for nitrogen retention values, neither grams N per
day nor as a percent of N intake. Since nitrogen retention
32
values for ration D were not higher than for the other
rations, this indicates that the steers were receiving
all the nitrogen they required from rations A, B, and C,
and the extra nitrogen available to the body cells from
ration D, due to the increased digestibility, was not
utilized and was excreted in the urine.
No differences were noticed in acceptability by the
steers among the four rations employed in this study.
Table 11 contains composition data for the meal.
Digestibility by Difference
The digestion coefficients for sunflower meal as
calculated by difference may be found in Table 12. These
values were calculated from procedures described by
Schneider et al., (1975). As Schneider points out,
digestibility by difference is, at best, an approximate
measure of digestibility due to associative or mutual
effects between feeds, and experimental error in sampling
and analysis. These figures show a general trend of lower
digestibility when the percentage of sunflower meal is
increased in the ration. This would suggest a possible
associative effect between sunflower meal and cottonseed
meal, or sunflower meal and the basal diet for dry matter,
organic matter, and crude and true digestibility of protein
However this effect might also be due to the differences
TABLE 11. COMPOSITION OF SUNFLOWER MEAL
(DRY MATTER BASIS)
Item Mean Values
33
Dry matter, %
Crude protein.
Ash, Q. •5
Ether extract.
Crude fiber. %
g. "5
%
Calcium, %
Phosphorus, %
Gross energy, kcal/g
93.3
30.0
6.6
1.1
27.0
.4
.8
4.1
34
TABLE 12. PERCENT DIGESTIBILITY BY
DIFFERENCE FOR SUNFLOWER MEAL
Item Rations B C D
Dry matter 81.7 73,4 62.2
Organic matter 102.8 93.4 56.2
Crude protein 115.5 57.4 125.9
True protein 130.2 82.3 117.4
Gross energy 91.9 105.9 95.3
35
between protein content of the two supplements. The
average digestion coefficients of rations B, C, and D for
the respective fractions are:
1) Dry matter digestibility - 72.44%
2) Organic matter digestibility - 84.01%
3) Crude protein digestibility - 99.61%
4) True digestibility of protein - 109.99%
5) Gross energy digestibility - 97.71%
Roughage Replacement Value
It is difficult to discuss direct substitution or
replacement of a feedstuff in a ration containing more
than two constituents. However, since practical rations
generally consist of more than one constituent, assum.ptions
must be made on this basis. There were no differences
noted in digestibility or acceptibility among rations when
5.5% sunflower meal, (approximately 27% crude fiber), was
used to replace the fiber and protein from 4.0% cotton
seed meal and 1.5% cottonseed hulls in ration B. The
findings were similar for ration C when 11.0% sunflower
meal was used to replace the fiber and protein in 8.0%
cottonseed meal and 3% cottonseed hulls. This would in
dicate no real differences in feeding sunflower meal as
opposed to cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls in a ration
for growing steers when isonitrogenous and isofibrous con
ditions are imposed.
36
Latin Square Versus Randomized Complete-Block Design
Experimental results from the previous trials were
analyzed in three different designs to compare their
relative efficiency in providing reliable digestibility
coefficients. The designs employed were: 1) randomized
complete-block (two trials), 2) replicated randomized
complete-block (four trials) and 3) Latin square. Results
of these comparisons can be found in Table 13.
The most effective design tested was the Latin square
analysis. Latin square analysis showed significant treat
ment effects for all digestibility components tested,
while showing no significance among treatments for nitrogen
balance values. Randomized complete-block, for both two
trials and four trials, gave similar results with the
exception of gross energy digestibility. Randomized
complete-block, two trials and four trials, indicated no
significance among treatments for gross energy digesti
bility, whereas Latin square analysis detected significance
among the four treatments. Error mean squares were analyzed
for the three designs tested and revealed that the Latin
square design resulted in smaller error mean squares which
was the reason for observed discrepancies in significance
among designs. An example is that treatment mean squares
for gross energy were very close for randomized complete-
37
2 O H CO fa Q
o fa « CO
fa
> fa
O H J CQ
I fa
fa
Q O
p fa
CO t o
o Q
CO :z; < : CO fa D
CO
fa >
ro
CQ a < ; CO
w 1 - ^
a
fa
u a
CO 0 u fd
CO
fd 0
'^t
p
fd CN CQ
0 4J
T3 3 in n3 r-- o • •
ro in
K "^ in r^ in CM • •
ro T:r
T! Ti CN ro CN r . .
in o rH
T3 *^ in KD 00 . .
r-^ CO
o •
rH V
o •
r-i V
O •
i-{
V
o •
r-\ V
T i
•^ vo
in
00 CM
CTi CO
CO
i n
CN
-^ ro
rH
Ti CO Ti CM "^ « .
"^ ro
rH r-• •
r rH rH rH
O •
rH V
r-\
^ m
VD
O ro •
in
CO <T> •
CN CM
O •
f-\
V
r-] ro *
CN CN
o *
rH V
CM CTi •
O ro
CM in in vo
CO ro ko i n r o - ^
CN
v£> i n cr>
o^ " ^ ro " ^ r o r -
• * in in • ^ CM
CM *x> in ro
ro
ro ro
in
i n
ro
cr»
ro
00
CO
00
o
i n
C3
ro
m
VD
CN rH
CO rH fd
•H u
- p
CM
I
u o
I 0 -p 0
r-{ CM B O
o
0 N
•H O C fd Pi
CO
fd
• H
4J
- ^
I
^i u o I
0 4-» 0
rH CM
O U
0 N
•H
g o fd
fd XI
0 u fd
CO
• H - P fd
CO 4-> O 0
MH IW 0
-P C 0 B -P fd 0 V -P
-P C fd u
-H 4H •H
•H CO
CO 0 4J O C 0 Q
O T5
CO 0 5H
(d 13 cr CO
fd 0 B
-p c: 0 B P fd 0
EH
CO 0 U (d
CO
fd 0 B
u o u u fa
CO
E H
CO
fa
38
block, two and four trials, and Latin square, 33.1, 45.4
and 33.5, respectively; but the error mean squares for
gross energy were 43.5, 34.8 and 6.4, respectively. These
data suggest that the Latin square design removed some
sources of variation that were attributed to error in the
randomized complete-block design. However, it must be
kept in mind that the experiments were initially designed
for Latin square, and trials two, three and four were not
truly random, according to randomized complete-block design
In conclusion, Latin square designed experiments are
more reliable than randomized complete-block designs for
providing digestibility coefficients. No difference in
efficiency was noted between randomized complete-block
designs, whether two or four trials were employed in the
procedure.
LIST OF REFERENCES
A.O.A.C. 1970. Official Methods of Analysis (11th Ed.). Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Washington, D.C.
Amos, H, E., D, Burdick, and T. L. Huber. 1974. Effects of Formaldehyde Treatment of Sunflower and Soybean Meal on Nitrogen Balance in Lambs. J. Ani. Sci. 38:702.
Anderson, L. R. 1970. Potential Utilization of Sunflower Oil in the United States. Proc. 4th Int. Sunflower Conf. p. 23.
Blaxter, K. L. 1964. Metabolism and Metabolic Size: A Study with Cattle and Sheep. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Sp. Rep. 43:8.
Brummett, B. J. and E. E. Burns. 1972. Pigment and Chromogen Characteristics of Sunflower Seed, Helianthus annuus. Food Sci. 37:1.
Cater, C. M., S. Gheyasuddin, K. F. Mattil and B. M. Colvin 1970. Recent Developments in the Production of Sunflower Protein Isolates. Proc. 4th Int. Sunflower Conf. p. 91.
Church, D. C. 1976. Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of Ruminants. Metropolitan Printing Co., Portland, Oregon. 1:232.
Clandinin, D. R. and A. R. Robblee. 1950. The Effects of Method of Processing on the Nutritive Value of Sunflower Meals. Poult. Sci. 29:753.
Day, H. G. and E. Levin. 1945. The Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal. Poult. Sci. 29:753.
Delic, I., T. Bokorov, A. Sreckovic and M. Bioloska Nikolic. 1964. Biological Value of Sunflower Oil-meal as a Protein Feed for Fattening Pigs. Nutr. Abstrs, and Rev. 34:596.
Fisher, R. A. 1925. Statistical Methods for Research Workers.
Grau, C. R. and H. J. Alquist. 1945. Value of Sunflower Seed Protein. Proc. Soc. Exptl. Biol. Med. 60:373.
39
40
Howe, E. E., E. W. Gilfillan and Max Milner. 1965. Amino Acid Supplementation of Protein Consent Rates as Related to the World Protein Supply. Amer. J. Clin. Nutr. 16:321.
Huffman, V. L., C. K. Lee and E. E. Burns. 1975. Selected Functional Properties of Sunflower Meal. J. Food Sci. 40:70.
Kercher, C. J,, S. Maxfield, L. Paules, W. Smith and G. Costel. 1974. Sunflower as a Source of Protein for Ruminants. Proc. Western Sect, of Amer. Soc. of Anim. Sci. 25:328.
Kinard, D. H. 1975, Feeding Value of Sunflower Meal and Hulls. Feedstuffs. Nov. 3, p. 26.
Klain, G. J., D. C. Hill, H. D. Branion and Jean A. Gray. 1956. The Value of Rapeseed Oil Meal and Sunflower Oil Meal in Chick Starter Rations. Poult. Sci. 35:1315
McGinnis, J., Peny Tung Heu and J. S. Carver. 1947. Nutritional Deficiencies of Sunflower Seed Oil Meal for Chicks. Poult. Sci. 27:389.
National Academy of Sciences. 1970. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, fourth edition. Publication Number 1754, Washington, D.C,
Neufeld, C. H. H. 1970. U.S.D.A., Ag. Research Service. Proc. 4th Int. Sunflower Conf. p. 35.
Neville, W. E., R. E. Hellwig, R. J. Ritter, III and W. C. McCormick. 1977. Effect of Diet Protein Level on Weight Gains of Early Weaned Beef Calves. J. Anim. Sci. 44:4:687.
Ockolic. S., G. Velickovic and D. Pejic. 1972. Sunflower Seed Meal as a Protein Source in Winter Rations for Dairy Cows and Its Effect on Feed Utilization and Quantity and Quality of Milk. (Translated Title) Poljoprivrenda Znaustvena Smotra. 29:635. (Dairy Sci. Abstr. 34:4)
Pearson, A. M., H. D. Wallace and J. F. Hentges, Jr. 1954. Sunflower Seed Meal as a Protein Supplement for Beef Cattle and Swine. University of Florida Agr. Res. Exp. Sta. Bull. 533.
41
Pettit, J. H., S. J, Slinger, E. V, Evans and F. N. Marcellus. 1944, The Utilization of Sunflower Seed Oil Meal, Wheat Distillers Dried Grains and Rapeseed Oil Meal in Poultry Rations. Sci, Agr. 24:201.
Rad, F. H. and K. Kershavarz. 1974. Evaluation of the Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal and the Possibility of Substitution of Sunflower Meal for Soybean Meal in Poultry Diets. Poult. Sci. 55:1757.
Radaeva, I. A, 1959. Effect of Sunflower Seed Cake and Maize Silage in the Rations of Cows on the Quality of Dried Milk. Nutr. Abstr. and Rev. 29:1388.
Robertson, J. A, 1975. Use of Sunflower Seed in Food Products. Critical Reviews in Food Sci. and Nutr. 6:2:201.
Rose, R. J., R. N. Coit, and J. L. Sell. 1971. Sunflower Seed Meal as a Replacement for Soybean Meal Protein in Laying Hen Rations. Poult. Sci. 51:960.
Schingoethe, D. J., J. A. Rook and F. Ludens. 1976. Evaluation of Sunflower Meal as a Protein Supplement for Lactating Cows. J. Diary Sci. 56:783.
Schneider, B. H. and W. P. Flatt. 1975. The Evaluation of Feeds through Digestibility Experiments. University of Georgia Press, Ahtens, Georgia.
Seerley, R. W., D. Burdick, W. C. Russom, R. S. Lowrey, H. C. McCampbell and H. E. Amos. 1974. Sunflower Meal as a Replacement for Soybean Meal in Growing Swine and Rat Diets. J. Anim. Sci. 38:5:947.
Slinger, S. J., D. C. Hill, K. M. Garthy and H. D. Branion. 1949. Soybean Oil Meal and Sunflower Seed Oil Meal in Rations for Broad-breasted Bronze Turkeys. Poult. Sci. 28:534.
Smith, K. J. 1968. A Review of the Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal. Feedstuffs. June 8, 40(23) :20.
Smith, R. E. 1966. Importance of an Accurate Reference Diet in the Evaluation of Proteins for Chick Growth Using Plasma Amino Acid Titers. J. of Nutr. 89:271.
Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press; Ames, Iowa. (6th Ed.).
42
Stake, P. E,, M. J, Owens and D. J, Schingoethe. 1972. Rapeseed, Sunflower and Soybean Meal Supplementation of Calf Rations. J, Dairy Sci, 56:783-788.
Steel, R, G. D. and J, H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Practices of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.; New York, Toronto and London.
Temperton, H., F, J. Dudley and G. J. Pickering. 1965. Phosphorus Requirements of Poultry for the Effects of Growing Pullets of Feeding Diets Containing no Animal Protein or Supplementary Phosphorus. Nutr. Abstr. and Rev. 35:1185.
Trotter, W. and W. Givan. 1970. Economics of Producing Sunflowers for Oil in the United States. Proc. 4th Int Sunflower Conf. p. 23.
United States - Canadian Tables of Feed Composition (2nd Revision). 1969, Publication 1684, Natl, Acad. Sci. Washington, D.C.
Vergoessen, A. J. 19 70. The Relationship Between Dietary Fat and the Prevention of Atlerosclerosis. Proc. 4th Int. Sunflower Conf. p. 219.
Top Related